METHODS: This is a retrospective study looking at patients who underwent VSD closure with or without aortic valve intervention between January 1st, 1992 and December 31st, 2014 at the Institute Jantung Negara. This study looked at all cases of VSD and AR, where AR was classified as mild, moderate, and severe, the intervention done in each of this grade, and the durability of that intervention. The interventions were classified as no intervention (NI), aortic valve repair (AVr), and aortic valve replacement (AVR).
RESULTS: A total of 261 patients were recruited into this study. Based on the various grades of AR, 105 patients had intervention to their aortic valve during VSD closure. The rest 156 had NI. All patients were followed up for a mean time of 13.9±3.5 years. Overall freedom from reoperation at 15 years was 82.6% for AVr. Various factors were investigated to decide on intervening on the aortic valve during VSD closure. Among those that were statistically significant were the grade of AR, size of VSD, age at intervention, and number of cusp prolapse.
CONCLUSION: We can conclude from our study that all moderate and severe AR with small VSD in older patients with more than one cusp prolapse will need intervention to their aortic valve during the closure of VSD.
METHODS: The two-dimensional images of normal heart from gated computed tomography scan datasets were used to create a 3D model of the heart. The slices were then processed using the software BioModroid and printed with the 3D printer. The evaluation of the model was performed by a questionnaire answered by four cardiothoracic surgeons, 12 cardiologists, five radiologists, and nine surgical registrars.
RESULTS: Eighty-six percent of the anatomy structures showed in this model scored 100% accuracy. Structures such as circumflex branch of left coronary artery, great cardiac vein, papillary muscle, and coronary sinus were each rated 77%, 70%, 70%, and 57% accurate. Among 30 clinicians, a total of 93% rated the model accuracy as good and above; 64% of the clinicians evaluated this model as an excellent teaching tool for anatomy class. As a visual aid for surgery or interventional procedures, the model was rated excellent (40%), good (50%), average (23%), and poor (3%); 70% of the clinicians scored the model as above average for training purpose. Overall, this 3D rapid prototyping cardiac model was rated as excellent (33%), good (50%), and average (17%).
CONCLUSION: This 3D rapid prototyping heart model will be a valuable source of anatomical education and cardiac interventional management.